A critical study of the scope and application of the three writ remedies mandamus, prohibition and certiorari
✅ Critical Study of the Writs: Mandamus, Prohibition, and Certiorari
Under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively have the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights (Article 32) and for any other purpose (Article 226).
Among the five traditional writs, Mandamus, Prohibition, and Certiorari play key roles in public law remedies by keeping administrative authorities in check.
🔍 1. Writ of Mandamus
▶️ Meaning & Scope
Mandamus literally means “we command.”
It is a command issued by a court to a public authority or body to perform a public/legal duty which it has failed or refused to perform.
Available only against public bodies, not private individuals.
📌 Conditions for Issue
There must be a legal duty imposed by statute, common law, or constitutional provision.
The petitioner must have locus standi (a legal right to enforce the duty).
The authority must have refused or neglected to perform the duty.
⚖️ Key Case Laws
A. Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual (1969) 1 SCC 585
Facts:
Employee of a government-controlled corporation sought mandamus to enforce his service rights.
Holding:
Mandamus cannot lie against a private body, even if it has government control, unless it performs a public function.
Significance:
Defined that mandamus lies only against public bodies performing public duties.
B. Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels (1983) 3 SCC 379
Facts:
Financial corporation sanctioned a loan and later refused to release funds arbitrarily.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that arbitrary refusal of a statutory corporation to perform its duty invites mandamus.
Significance:
Mandamus enforces fairness and accountability in public sector undertakings.
C. Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679
Facts:
Employees sought mandamus for the CAG to act on statutory duties.
Holding:
Court ruled mandamus can compel performance of discretionary functions, if the discretion is abused or not exercised at all.
Significance:
Mandamus can also be used to correct arbitrary administrative inaction.
🔍 2. Writ of Prohibition
▶️ Meaning & Scope
Prohibition is a preventive writ issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to stop it from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law.
It operates before the proceedings are completed.
📌 When is it Issued?
When a judicial or quasi-judicial authority acts:
Without jurisdiction
In excess of jurisdiction
In violation of natural justice
⚖️ Key Case Laws
D. East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs (1962) AIR SC 1893
Facts:
Customs authority acted without proper jurisdiction in adjudicating export violation.
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that writ of prohibition can be used to prevent authorities from acting outside their legal authority.
Significance:
Reinforced the writ's role in preventing jurisdictional abuse.
E. Calcutta Discount Co. v. ITO (1961) AIR SC 372
Facts:
Income Tax Officer initiated proceedings without valid jurisdiction.
Holding:
Held that a writ of prohibition can be issued even at a stage before actual damage occurs.
Significance:
Demonstrates preventive nature of the writ.
🔍 3. Writ of Certiorari
▶️ Meaning & Scope
Certiorari is a corrective writ issued to quash the decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial body which acted:
Without jurisdiction
In excess of jurisdiction
With legal error on the face of the record
In violation of principles of natural justice
It is issued after the authority has passed an order or made a decision.
📌 Who Can Be Subject?
Applicable to courts, tribunals, or statutory bodies performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Not applicable to purely administrative or private decisions.
⚖️ Key Case Laws
F. T.C. Basappa v. Nagappa (1954) AIR SC 440
Facts:
Challenge to election result based on jurisdictional error.
Holding:
Held that writ of certiorari can be used to quash orders without jurisdiction or violating natural justice.
Significance:
Broadly defines scope of judicial review through certiorari.
G. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1955) AIR SC 233
Facts:
Election Tribunal passed an order with an error of law.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that certiorari can be issued for an error of law that is apparent on the face of the record.
Significance:
Clarified distinction between reviewing facts vs correcting jurisdictional/legal errors.
H. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675
Facts:
Civil judge’s interim order was challenged under writ jurisdiction.
Holding:
Held that certiorari can be used even against civil court orders in limited circumstances, especially when there's a gross miscarriage of justice.
Significance:
Expanded certiorari to ensure substantive justice, though later overruled partially.
🎯 Comparison of the Three Writs
| Aspect | Mandamus | Prohibition | Certiorari |
|---|---|---|---|
| Function | Command to do a public duty | Prevents unlawful action | Quashes an already completed unlawful act |
| Timing | Before/when the authority is inactive | Before decision is made | After decision/order is passed |
| Against Whom | Public bodies, officials | Judicial/quasi-judicial bodies | Judicial/quasi-judicial bodies |
| Nature | Compulsory | Preventive | Corrective |
| Examples of Cases | Praga Tools, Jagannathan | East India Commercial, Calcutta Discount | Basappa, Hari Vishnu, Surya Dev Rai |
✅ Conclusion: Critical Observations
These writs play a vital role in enforcing constitutional governance.
The judiciary uses these tools to control administrative and quasi-judicial overreach.
The scope of these writs has evolved through case law, adapting to modern needs like protecting fairness, transparency, and rights.
However, courts remain cautious not to exceed into policy-making or purely administrative decisions unless rights are at stake.
RELATED Blog
0 comments